It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

page: 20
3
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Undo, he is not.

Nor did I quote him out of context. In fact, I'm willing to quote everything from that paragraph:



Egypt. Land of the Pyramids and a vast collection of evidence that, like a taciturn teenager, is begging for understanding. Contrary to conventional thought, for decades there has been an undercurrent of speculation that the pyramid builders were more advanced. The speculation is well placed. When attempts have been made to build pyramids using the theorized methods of the ancient Egyptians, they have fallen considerably short. The great pyramid is 483 feet high and houses 70 ton pieces of granite lifted to a level of 175 feet. Theorists have struggled with stones weighing up to 2 tons to a height of a few feet. One wonders if these were attempts to prove that primitive methods are capable of building the Egyptian pyramids or the opposite? Executing this theory to practice has not revealed the theory to be correct. Do we need to revise the theory, or will we continue to educate our young with erroneous data?


Fact is, he's wrong. I've named the thoery where they lifted three tons. He says "Theorists have struggled with stones weighing up to 2 tons to a height of a few feet.". This is wrong, Mory Gharib has done it.

He goes on and on in all of his articles, which I've seen before - many times. You can go through it and through it and pick mistake after mistake. It's just no longer worth the time.




posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
People have done the following: life heavy stones using simple methods with simple tools and technology. Some have even managed to life these stones by themselves.

But, noboby has indicated how some of the large stones found in the pyramid have been moved at all nor to the great heights achieved nor explained the economics of such a system (its effect on the country of egypt), nor the logisitics of such construction. There has been a lot of talk but nobody obviously has nor will display this happening before my eyes.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
denythestatusquo afraid I did.

You see those names I listed? They've done it, many a time in books. :-) Before the internet, we had books. Shockingly, they still exist. I don't just add these names for my health.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
It IS worth the time and I'll tell you why:

If you don't explain why he's wrong, you end up creating the false impression that although you require others to produce oodles of proof or evidence, you aren't willing to answer their responses. Either fess up or heet de road.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
I henceforth decree, in the tradition and fashion of my superior, Odium, that the Abzu was moved, stones and all, from ancient Sumer to Abydos, Egypt. You can't prove me wrong and since Odium and I are the professional dispensers of truth in this forum, I'm afraid your proof is not worth considering. The ancient egyptians simply loaded the stones on a barge boat at Eridu, which was right on the Euphrates river and only a hop, skip and a jump, from the ocean. Then they sailed the stones to Abydos along the Nile, where they unloaded them (100 ton stones in some cases) and drug them to the site of the Osirieon. Case closed. No alternative theories allowed. I already know all there is to know on this topic. Sorry.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Undo.

I'll try and make this simple for you.

Person A says you can't lift things over 2 tons using their technology.
Person B says you can.

Person B does so.
Person A is then wrong.

I've named Person B, you've named Person A.

In fact, I did not just name Person B, I named three of them who've all done what Person A said they couldn't. :-) Along with the reference where one of them was in.

In fact, much of what you said seems to come from this guy. Egyptian's not having the wheel during the period - wrong. Not being able to cut the blocks - wrong. So on and so fourth.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Undo.

I'll try and make this simple for you.

Person A says you can't lift things over 2 tons using their technology.
Person B says you can.

Person B does so.
Person A is then wrong.

I've named Person B, you've named Person A.

In fact, I did not just name Person B, I named three of them who've all done what Person A said they couldn't. :-) Along with the reference where one of them was in.

In fact, much of what you said seems to come from this guy. Egyptian's not having the wheel during the period - wrong. Not being able to cut the blocks - wrong. So on and so fourth.


The problem with that argument is it only addresses one of his points and it does so under the assumption that he wrote this "2 ton" thing after the fact, rather than before. When did person B, do so? What were the circumstances and conditions of doing so? And furthermore, you can be wrong about one theory and still be right about others. One error does not destroy an entire set of evidence. For example, I don't discount everything you say because you falsely assumed I was a man! This is called mutual respect and consideration for the margin of error any researcher might present. You can't allow him a margin of error? Fine, then you can't say another thing in defense of your theory - afterall, you were wrong about something as basic as the gender of the person you were addressing, which gives the impression that you think in stereotypes when the topic is contrary to your current knowledge.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Undo the rest of his theory is based on the fact they did not have the wheel.

It's a simple arguement.
Him: They had no wheel. Without a wheel they had no lathes.
Fact: They had a wheel. They had a potters wheel. They more than likely had lathes.

They have a potters wheel in a Museum, dating 2400BC. The idea and I quote:


Although the ancient Egyptians are not given credit for having a simple wheel, the evidence proves they had a more sophisticated use for the wheel.


They are given credit. Again, he goes on to make out as though nobody thinks they had them. His arguement is flawed because he wants to make it harder then it is.

If you have been to the Pyramids, you'll know there are gaps, they're not cleanly cut and so on and so fourth.

I've already named people who have shown otherwise.

...and limestone can be cut with what they had.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Oh? Since when have they said the egyptians had the wheel?
I can't imagine them saying so unless they contend that the wheel was a known device in that time frame and if so, where's evidence of its usage in similar time frames from surrounding civs, like mesopotamia, the far east and europe? If they had the wheel, then why all the machinations to get the blocks up the ramp? The wheel really simplifies all that.

And the point he brings up regarding the lathe is to prove that even stones as big and heavy and cumbersome as a sarcophagus lid and the GRANITE stones from the GP show signs of being lathed. Imagine the size of the lathe for such a project. He also provides rather convincing evidence that the stones were dressed insitu. I'm not sure how good you would look after 5000 years, at least one massive earthquake and several floods, not to mention having all your outer coverings removed (the white casing stones), but I'm sure it'd make you seem a bit rough around the edges. I'm guessing they didn't put much effort into beautifying the stone blocks because they knew they were going to dress them in polished white limestone. So not only do we have the issue of the blocks, but the issue of the casing stones.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Ann Hellmold from Smith's College, published work about the Egyptians and Pottery. Here's an online source: www.ceramicstoday.com... It shows some information, but it's not as good as the books.

Also, the wheel was in use in regions near to Egypt.



This was from Ur, circa 2600BC. Wheel was about for a long time, they're mostly made of wood though meaning what people? Exactly, they're rare as rocking horse... to find one in tact. However, there are pots, hieroglyphs and so on and so fourth that display wheels.

Furthermore the lathe would not have to be that large. I used to work with lathes in factories. The toolpost moves, not the workpiece. Also, they could easily have spent 10 years just on the sarcophagus. They did not pop them out every few days after all.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Ann Hellmold from Smith's College, published work about the Egyptians and Pottery. Here's an online source: www.ceramicstoday.com... It shows some information, but it's not as good as the books.

Also, the wheel was in use in regions near to Egypt.



This was from Ur, circa 2600BC. Wheel was about for a long time, they're mostly made of wood though meaning what people? Exactly, they're rare as rocking horse... to find one in tact. However, there are pots, hieroglyphs and so on and so fourth that display wheels.

Furthermore the lathe would not have to be that large. I used to work with lathes in factories. The toolpost moves, not the workpiece. Also, they could easily have spent 10 years just on the sarcophagus. They did not pop them out every few days after all.


Good info! So you believe the GP was built circa 2600 BC, no earlier than that? I'm surprised they didn't use the wheel for a rope, lever and pulley system since they were already enjoying the use of the wheel for various purposes. I haven't read the link yet, but will do so shortly. And what say you regarding the polished white limestone casings?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Okay one of the problems with Ann's theory, I see right off the bat, as regards your theory, is the idea that they could place 70 ton stones or even 1 ton stones on a wooden lathe wheel and lathe it without the issue of the wood giving away and dropping the stone on their toes. Ideas?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
On the mineral scale limestone is 4-5. Copper is 3.5-4, bronze is 3.5-4. [Copper and Bronze both go slightly over 4 and can cut limestone.]

Also as for lathes, I don't believe they did it like that. The Egyptian's did have access to some material, which could cut granite which is only 5-6 on the scale. If you take two stones and hit one against the other, it's possible to cut a small line into it. If you take a hard piece of granite, you can break other bits of granite with it. Chip it away, etc. The lathe would just have to smooth it out more often then not and to drive it could be done by any number of ways, including using the same motion as a potters wheel.



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
i'm starting to get a bit confused about this thread

maybe someone should do a recap of the evidence supporting both sides

it's awfully hard to read through so many pages to get at where we are



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
which could cut granite which is only 5-6 on the scale.


Granite is mostly feldspar[6-6.5] and quartz[7] with a little bit of mica...

Copper is 3.5
A steel knife blade is generally 5.5
A Carbon steel file is 6.5

Don't forget that each point of hardness is 10 times that of the previous like the Richter scale of Earthquakes..

Steel does not scratch quartz, though its true you can chip away at it.

You can however rub granite, agate or quartz with quartz sand and polish it... tedious but you can do it... Works like diamond polishing, as the particles vary slightly in hardness on different axis...

You could take a rope, sand and water and saw through a big rock... but its gonna take you a LOT of time



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium


So ummm what are the two figures on the backs of the horses?

Look like Grays to me...

Either that or they are wind up keys, which means they not only had wheels, but gears as well...

Hmmm seems I have heard stories of ancient gears once or twice...



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
they look like greys to you


are you on medication ?

or do you think thet Greys were utilised in Sumeria to attach horse reigns to horses via their oversize eye sockets once they had been decapitated and nailed to a board ?



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
they look like greys to you


Nah definately wind up keys


Those are toys for the Kings feast



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Guaging by their clothing styles, that picture seems a bit younger than 2600 BC. In fact, it reminds me of medieval works. Will have to study it a bit more indepth. The wheels look like stone discs rather than wood discs, btw, although I suppose they could be either



posted on Sep, 26 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The standard bearer in the back of the chariot looks like he's carrying a halberd (halbred) with a standard attached. Perhaps this is a fabulous fake of some kind?
It also bothers me that there are black boxes behind the "harness eyes", as if they've been painted over with black paint and a different thing painted in its place. Is this inlay or just the border?


[edit on 26-9-2006 by undo]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join